F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[Jeff Head]

Jura, the F-35 is still undergoing testing. It is not cleared for the full range of maneuverability yet. Some of the pilots are asking for clearance to put it through more in depth agility and maneuvering capabilities.

So, I would be very careful and leery of detractors who try and make too much of the tests.at this stage. It's exactly as you say...your 2nd link is to detractors. People who are looking for anything they perceive as negative to bolster an already pre-conceived and determined opinion. it is not likely that such people will ever approve of the F-35.

Let's wait until the F-35 is cleared for the full range and envelope of maneuvers in these exercises and can utilize all of her tools.

These types of exercises, at this stage of her development, are more tests than anything else. And the US Military is not going to be too forthcoming about results at this point because the aircraft is not even at initial operational capability...much less full operational capability.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Jura, the F-35 is still undergoing testing. It is not cleared for the full range of maneuverability yet. Some of the pilots are asking for clearance to put it through more in depth agility and maneuvering capabilities.

So, I would be very careful and leery of detractors who try and make too much of the tests.at this stage. It's exactly as you say...your 2nd link is to detractors. People who are looking for anything they perceive as negative to bolster an already pre-conceived and determined opinion. it is not likely that such people will ever approve of the F-35.

Let's wait until the F-35 is cleared for the full range and envelope of maneuvers in these exercises and can utilize all of her tools.

These types of exercises, at this stage of her development, are more tests than anything else. And the US Military is not going to be too forthcoming about results at this point because the aircraft is not even at initial operational capability...much less full operational capability.

that's the beauty of these unnamed sources, no doubt there is some truth, and a lot of "bloviating" as opposed to "aviating"?, said jet jockey bemoans the F-35s slow pitch transition, as the well written article quoted the F-35 is still having its FCS "configured" to provide max pitch, roll, and yaw transitions.

What he is bemoaning is that the F-35 has its control responses "dialed back", until the full flight envelope has been "opened up", and the FCS will be "opened up" to allow the F-35 to reach its full maneuverability potential very shortly.

As the AFB has attempted to school those not schooled, the OVT of the F-22, T-50, and Flanker variants is there simply to amplify the speed of pitch transitions, and to maintain that rate and effectiveness into and through the stall and post stall regime, when airflow over the control surfaces is insufficient to allow the aircraft to be thrown around. The F-35 has dispensed with OVT as it is not needed or desired, the A2A role is still secondary to carrying a full load of A2G ordinance and delivering that on target, none the less, the F-35 is a very agile aircraft, and a very safe aircraft, finishing out much of its testing with-out the spin chute. This was allowed due to the very predictable behaviors of the aircraft in the slow flight, and stall as well as post stall.

In actuality the F-35 had to have an aerodynamic tweak to force it to misbehave in order to exhibit the bad habits that other airplanes do when pushed, the afore-mentioned F-16 will gladly each your lunch for free, starting somewhere in the 20-30 degree angle of attack flight regime, as will the F-15 and F-18?? Don't even think of pushing a Mig-21 or F-4 that hard, or even the fun little T-38, just for a few examples, even the little twin engine Cessna T-37 would chew you up and spit you out??? but hey, folks who don't understand why aircraft fly, or why they behave the way they do have no problem quoting the "internet experts", and as Jeff has stated David Axe is the "nattering Nabob of Negativity" in the flesh! just read a few of his "self aggrandizing" little articles? bad literature, and very bad source for a knowledgeable poster on the Sino Defense Forum?

 

[thunderchief]

Fact that F-35 could not compete against F-16 in close combat (or Mig-29, Mirage-2000, F-18 etc ... ) was known long ago and it is not a surprise . Everyone just looking at that fat fuselage and relatively small wings could tell you that this is not a turn fighter . In fact, even before it was created, original specifications for JSF (joint strike !!! fighter) assumed it would not be a good dogfighter . Problem was created with decision to cut down number of ATFs (F-22) and to push JSF(F-35) into the role it was not designed to do .

Anyway , excerpts from original article about the same with some details . Point to @Air Force Brat - they could increase AoA to increase instantaneous turn rate, but at the same time this would bleed energy even more . So, if enemy fighter surprises F-35, after few turns F-35 would be at distinct disadvantage .

The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.

The defeated flier’s five-page report is a damning litany of aerodynamic complaints targeting the cumbersome JSF.
“Insufficient pitch rate.” “Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over time.” “The flying qualities in the blended region (20–26 degrees AoA) were not intuitive or favorable.”

The F-35 jockey tried to target the F-16 with the stealth jet’s 25-millimeter cannon, but the smaller F-16 easily dodged. “Instead of catching the bandit off-guard by rapidly pull aft to achieve lead, the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution,” the JSF pilot complained.

And when the pilot of the F-16 turned the tables on the F-35, maneuvering to put the stealth plane in his own gunsight, the JSF jockey found he couldn’t maneuver out of the way, owing to a “lack of nose rate.”

The F-35 pilot came right out and said it — if you’re flying a JSF, there’s no point in trying to get into a sustained, close turning battle with another fighter. “There were not compelling reasons to fight in this region.” God help you if the enemy surprises you and you have no choice but to turn.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

Thunder, as mentioned earlier...detractors will say what they will...and they do not give any specific names for who is talking...and the simply ignore the limitations placed on the aircraft due to their state of testing and evaluation.

I have known quite a few USAF pilots. I have never met a single one that would say something like..."There were not compelling reasons to fight ...God help you if the enemy surprises you and you have no choice but to turn," about any aircraft they had trained on and flew in any such exercises.

Particularly when they are testing an aircraft that has not been cleared to perform the very type of maneuvering necessary to engage in that type of combat.

We can always find such articles...people who are looking for reasons to discount the aircraft. But they are easy to make at this stage...because the aircraft is not even in an initial state of operation. Again, they are not approved for the types of maneuvering necessary to win such engagements.

I will make another prediction right now. Once the F-35s are approved for full combat maneuvering, and once they are fully operational, they will burn and turn with F-16s and utilize their capabilities extremely effectively against them, and almost any other aircraft they are likely to face.

Once that happens and thy are engaging in such exercises, after their approval and full operational status...we can get back together here and compare note fro both sides as they speak of their experiences.

 

[thunderchief]

I would say just this : max g-load for F-16 is 9g . F-35 supposed to be at the same level(it was also designed for 9g) . If it is not, there is something structurally very wrong with it , especially now when LM is pushing for mass production of 500 airframes .

But I'm afraid this is something completely different . F-35 could sustain 9g but also has higher wing loading compared to F-16, and most likely higher drag (owing to "fat" fuselage) . T/W is similar if we compare lightly armed F-16 with clean F-35 . Like it or not, F-35 was not designed for turning and I doubt it would ever get close to F-16 in this regard .

Time would tell, but really, things mentioned in this article are not surprise to me, or anyone else watching this project unfold . F-35 is a strike fighter, it is not a dogfighter and it would never be .

 

[Equation]

F-35 is a strike fighter, it is not a dogfighter and it would never be .

It can be BVR dog fighter. With more advance missiles and radars who needs to see their enemy in order to engage them?

 

[Jeff Head]

It can be BVR dog fighter. With more advance missiles and radars who needs to see their enemy in order to engage them?

The F-35 is also going to be a heck of a close in fighter.

Not an F-22 for sure...but it was designed to hold its own when tangling with enemy air...and it will do so.

But for some, it's going to take time and the performance of the aircraft when it is cleared for first full maneuverability engagement ranges, and then once it has achieved full operational capability. Once that happens and it engages in full up exercises.

Time will prove this to be correct.

 

[Equation]

The F-35 is also going to be a heck of a close in fighter.

Not an F-22 for sure...but it was designed to hold its own when tangling with enemy air...and it will do so.

But for some, it's going to take time and the performance of the aircraft when it is cleared for first full maneuverability engagement ranges, and then once it has achieved full operational capability. Once that happens and it engages in full up exercises.

Time will prove this to be correct.

You're right Jeff, but the thing is some detractors keeps comparing future combat engagements with the past and expect newer weapons to meet that old credible capability issue. Did laser guided bombs needs a squadron of bombers just to hit a single target like in WWII? No.

 

[Zool]

I read the same report that thunderchief posted and wish the F-35 Pilot who is quoted on performance during engagement with the F-16 could have been named, to confirm validity. The quotes are pretty detailed though and honestly I would not be surprised if it's a true account.

The F-35 is multi-role but it's strength since design was always in BVR engagement and strike, where it will turn and burn after releasing it's payload. The F-22 was meant to be the air superiority fighter that could snipe as well as dog fight with it's superior kinematics. I think it will be extremely rare that an F-35 operationally finds itself in a close-up furball in any case. In a real-world scenario, the chances of any 4th-Gen aircraft getting the jump on an F-35 are close to nil; the opposite being much more likely and resulting in the destruction of the enemy plane as a result of superior sensors and reduced emission profile.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Fact that F-35 could not compete against F-16 in close combat (or Mig-29, Mirage-2000, F-18 etc ... ) was known long ago and it is not a surprise . Everyone just looking at that fat fuselage and relatively small wings could tell you that this is not a turn fighter . In fact, even before it was created, original specifications for JSF (joint strike !!! fighter) assumed it would not be a good dogfighter . Problem was created with decision to cut down number of ATFs (F-22) and to push JSF(F-35) into the role it was not designed to do .

Anyway , excerpts from original article about the same with some details . Point to @Air Force Brat - they could increase AoA to increase instantaneous turn rate, but at the same time this would bleed energy even more . So, if enemy fighter surprises F-35, after few turns F-35 would be at distinct disadvantage .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would say just this : max g-load for F-16 is 9g . F-35 supposed to be at the same level(it was also designed for 9g) . If it is not, there is something structurally very wrong with it , especially now when LM is pushing for mass production of 500 airframes .

But I'm afraid this is something completely different . F-35 could sustain 9g but also has higher wing loading compared to F-16, and most likely higher drag (owing to "fat" fuselage) . T/W is similar if we compare lightly armed F-16 with clean F-35 . Like it or not, F-35 was not designed for turning and I doubt it would ever get close to F-16 in this regard .

Time would tell, but really, things mentioned in this article are not surprise to me, or anyone else watching this project unfold . F-35 is a strike fighter, it is not a dogfighter and it would never be .

Well Chief, you are taking your olde world fighter dogma, (yes, we know you taught Eddie Rickenbacker how to fly?) and attempting to place the F-35 into that template? The Marine aviator who was attached to an F-22 squadron, in order to learn how to fly and fight the F-35 gave an awesome account of how that does not work? He was a highly experienced F-18 pilot, the young F-22 pilots just "kicked his butt", until he learned to apply that fifth gen "advantage"?? He is now the first Marine Corp IP in the F-35, and very happy with the B model, which is limited to 7gs, comparable to the F-18s 7.5 Gs which is matched by the C model. Only the Air Force A model is stressed/rated for 9 Gs and AF-2 has been to 9.9 Gs by taking down some of the parameters that limit the FCS.

The long and short of it, is the F-35 will do fine in the fur-ball, or we wouldn't have placed it in that roll, this airplane is in the process of having its flight envelope "opened up", but the things AF-2 has done are simply "other-worldly", initially flying to an AOA of 73 degrees with-out OVT was nutty? but 110 degrees, thats simply INSANE, that means that the 50 degree AOA is very safe and very do-able every day, and yes F-35 pilots will be able to keep pulling when that F-16 hits the wall, and yes it will bleed energy, as will the F-16, the difference is the F-16 will depart some-where in the mid 20s AOA, what does that do for your dog-fighting??? the F-35 will just keep on pulling the nose inside that little "flighty Falcon", so yes all airplanes bleed energy when they create lift by turning, lift creates drag and drag causes you to bleed energy, and that's not all bad, that can be very handy in a close in turn and burn, you prolly out to watch top gun again?